[RFC PATCH v2 03/14] of: mtd: add documentation for nand-ecc-level property

[Boris BREZILLON]

Hello Ezequiel

Le 29/01/2014 18:53, Ezequiel Garcia a écrit :
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:34:13PM +0100, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
>> nand-ecc-level property statically defines NAND chip's ECC requirements.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon.dev at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand.txt |    3 +++
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand.txt
>> index 03855c8..0c962296 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand.txt
>> @@ -3,5 +3,8 @@
>>   - nand-ecc-mode : String, operation mode of the NAND ecc mode.
>>     Supported values are: "none", "soft", "hw", "hw_syndrome", "hw_oob_first",
>>     "soft_bch".
>> +- nand-ecc-level : Two cells property defining the ECC level requirements.
>> +  The first cell represent the strength and the second cell the ECC block size.
>> +  E.g. : nand-ecc-level = <4 512>; /* 4 bits / 512 bytes */
>>   - nand-bus-width : 8 or 16 bus width if not present 8
>>   - nand-on-flash-bbt: boolean to enable on flash bbt option if not present false
> Hm.. when was this proposal agreed?
Never, this is a proposal based on my needs, and this was not present in the
1st version of this series :-).
> It seems I've missed the
> discussion...
>
> FWIW, we've already proposed an equivalent one, but it received no
> feedback from the devicetree maintainers:
>
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/58764
>
> Maybe we can discuss about it now?
>
>    nand-ecc-strength : integer ECC required strength.
>    nand-ecc-size : integer step size associated to the ECC strength.
>
>    vs.
>
>    nand-ecc-level : Two cells property defining the ECC level requirements.
>    The first cell represent the strength and the second cell the ECC block size.
>    E.g. : nand-ecc-level = <4 512>; /* 4 bits / 512 bytes */
>
> It's really the same proposal but with a different format, right?

Yes it is.

> IMHO, the former is more human-readable, but other than that I see no
> difference.

As I already said to Pekon, I won't complain if my proposal is not chosen,
as long as there is a proper way to define these ECC requirements ;-).

Best Regards,

Boris

>
> Brian? DT-guys?